<div dir="ltr">Thanks, Emily,<div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Emily M. Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebender@uw.edu" target="_blank">ebender@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Sorry - I don't think I have anything to contribute to a discussion of the analysis of it clefts, not having been involved in it.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">I thought you might know from your work on the ErgSemantics wikis, but I see that the "it-cleft" section is not yet filled out.</span><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> Regarding (1) v. (2):<div><br></div><div>(1) It was in January that Browne arrived.</div><div>(2) It was a (cold dark) day in January that Browne arrived.</div><div><br></div><div>If (2) is accepted, I'd expect loc_nonsp, since there is no overt preposition. That seems orthogonal to the question of how the clefted constituent in cleft constructions is linked up in the composition with the clause it notionally belongs to. (At a guess, I'd hope that the usual analysis of long distance dependencies could do the trick, but like I said, I haven't touched this in the grammar or otherwise and I'm sure there are complexities I'm not aware of.)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For comparison, "It was on Kim we relied" (an example from the ERG's TDL comments) seems to work, but the "on" is part of the _rely_v_on predicate, not a separate _on_p ("It was on Kim we landed" has the same problem as the "in January" example). Guy's "Browne was hired" vs "It was Browne that was hired" differ from the "in January" example in that the clefted constituent is an argument of the main verb, whereas for "in January" the main verb is an argument of the clefted constituent. I'm not sure if this makes things more difficult, though.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Emily</div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thanks for explaining, Guy. I misunderstood in your previous email: simply removing loc_nonsp does not help me resolve whether _in_p_temp or _hire_v_1 is the representative EP, but it certainly helps if the latter is the ARG1 of the former. Unfortunately no output of the ERG (niether 1214 nor trunk) gives such an MRS. I'm hoping Dan or Emily (when they have a chance to catch up with this thread) can shed some light onto whether the analysis we have is correct or if the (more intuitive) one you propose is what we should get.<div><br></div><div>Note that the cleft form is similar to "It was a day in January that Browne was hired", which has a stronger case for the loc_nonsp. But this might help explain why it's used in the original sentence (without "a day"), e.g., in case the "in" is hidden under that "was" and for technical reasons cannot be linked up with "hired".</div></div><div class="m_1156427694693974334HOEnZb"><div class="m_1156427694693974334h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Guy Emerson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gete2@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">gete2@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>"Browne was hired in January"</div><div>- in the 1214 ERG, the ARG1 of _in_p_temp is the ARG0 of _hire_v_1.<br></div><div>- we can therefore choose _hire_v_1 as the representative EP</div><div><br></div><div>"it was in January that Browne was hired"</div><div>- we need to add something to mark the cleft construction (presumably now in ICONS)</div><div>- otherwise, nothing else needs to change in the semantics</div><div>- if nothing else changes, we can choose _hire_v_1 as the representative EP, for the same reason as above<br></div><div>- in the 1214 ERG, there is a loc_nonsp that mediates between _in_p_temp and _hire_v_1, but I think this is a bug</div><div><br></div><div>As explained in that wiki page, loc_nonsp is used for implicit locatives, but there's nothing implicit here, because we have an explicit "in". For example, compare:</div><div>"Browne was hired"</div><div>"it was Browne that was hired"</div><div>- in the 1214 ERG, the only difference between the two is the _be_v_itcleft (which presumably is going to move to ICONS), and I think this is correct</div><div>- whatever difference we have here should also be the only difference between "Browne was hired in January" and "it was in January that Browne was hired"</div><div><div class="m_1156427694693974334m_-1304380286925235866h5"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Am 25.07.2018 20:19 schrieb "Michael Wayne Goodman" <<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>>:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_1156427694693974334m_-1304380286925235866m_7695691042515601779m_-1442720829950667158m_4107041471551496551quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Forgot to CC the list...<div class="m_1156427694693974334m_-1304380286925235866m_7695691042515601779m_-1442720829950667158m_4107041471551496551elided-text"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Guy Emerson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gete2@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">gete2@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>For "It was in January that Browne was hired", is the MRS correct? I was surprised to see both _in_p_temp and loc_nonsp mediating between mofy(Jan) and _hire_v_1. Is there a reason to have both? It would seem more consistent to have just _in_p_temp, which takes the intrinsic variable of _hire_v_1 as its ARG1. This would match the MRS for "Brown was hired in January". Adding the it-cleft seems to have the side effect of adding loc_nonsp.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Hmm, good point (this is relevant, for those following along: <a href="http://moin.delph-in.net/ErgSemantics/ImplicitLocatives" target="_blank">http://moin.delph-in.ne<wbr>t/ErgSemantics/ImplicitLocativ<wbr>es</a>). I think this version of the ERG is simply unable to link up the ARG1 of _in_p_temp to the index of _hire_v_1. Notice that the ARG1 of _in_p_temp is underspecified, so the loc_nonsp is required, then, to establish the relationship. Other analyses that do not have loc_nonsp don't actually get us a _in_p_temp that hooks up with _hire_v_1; rather, the "in January" is modifying the "was" (i.e., not an it-cleft analysis). <span style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Also, if I remove the loc_nonsp and change the ARG1 of _in_p_temp to select the ARG0 of _hire_v_1, the MRS no longer generates.</span> I'm not sure if the original selected analysis is an underspecification of some valid ambiguity or a technical compromise to deal with limitations in our rules of composition.</div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The reason this is relevant is that, without the loc_nonsp, there would be no need to look at TENSE.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm not following here. What would change in the graph to make _hire_v_1 stand out as the representative EP?</div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="m_1156427694693974334m_-1304380286925235866m_7695691042515601779m_-1442720829950667158m_4107041471551496551m_4004264604853669078m_5283905499216366708m_-4433971587958679417m_5732599838301898266gmail-h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2018-07-24 23:18 GMT+01:00 Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Answering one of my own questions; see below...<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>If anyone has read this far, I have a question: both the ERG and Jacy have a [ TENSE untensed ] property, but is this a more widespread convention? I'm reluctant to rely on it because I want to avoid parametrizing my semantic conversion functions for grammar-specific values.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I surveyed some grammars, and noted that the following use [ TENSE untensed ]: ERG, Jacy, gg, SRG</div><div><br></div><div>The following do not: NorSource, Semitic Grammar (HeGram), BURGER, HaG, KRG, INDRA, Zhong</div><div><br></div><div>Also note:</div><div>* HaG has [ TAM untensed ] exported in the VPM, but not [ TENSE untensed ]</div><div>* Zhong does not use the TENSE property at all</div><div><br></div><div>So I think it's safe to say that it's *not* a widespread convention among medium-sized or larger grammars.<br></div><div><br></div><div>One alternative to this specific tense property is the pos field of predicates, which is part of MRS and not grammar-defined. The idea is that predicates of certain pos values are more likely to modify others, such as verbs modifying nouns ("sleeping dog"), adpositionals modifying verbs ("ran quickly", "ran in the park"), degree modifiers on adpositionals ("ran very quickly", "the cat was very much in the bag"), etc. Abstract predicates (which do not formally have a pos) would come last, I suppose. But I'm not certain that such a gradation is not language-specific, and there are probably counter-examples.</div></div></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div> </blockquote></span></div><br></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div> </div></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span class="">-- <br><div class="m_1156427694693974334gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender<br>Professor, <span style="font-size:12.8px">Department of Linguistics</span></div><div dir="ltr">Check out CLMS on facebook! <a href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div> </span></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>